Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

No, I am seriously expecting that anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of reality is capable to see that the theory of evolution is just a complex rationalization for denial of reality, and as such - a hoax. In reality, biology is based on interactions between the specific 3D shapes. The more particles a particular shape has the more non-specific 3D shapes can be produced. Bio-structures have millions and millions of particles and as such, infinite potential for non-specific 3D shapes. Specificity of a particular 3D shape is defined by other specific 3D shapes. To find specificity you need resources. Resources in evolution are not only highly insufficient but also constrained by time and space - an organism that lives in a certain environment cannot use resources from other times and places for its adaptation(production of a specific 3D shape). Lab experiments can produce a lot of resources, like the Szostak experiment did(10^11) but they are useles with regards to specificity of a particular 3D shape in a particular time and space. In short, the ToE is a hoax. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. In reality, the first forms of life (as we know life) were unicellular organisms. That's rudimental. Word salads won't change that. No hoaxes involved. Just basic geology and the fossils of unicellular organisms found in old rocks.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Evolution only requires two resources from its organisms - the tendency to reproduce, and the tendency to mutate on reproduction. The environment does not supply these resources - instead it exerts selection pressures.

No. You don't understand evolution. Tendency to mutate is just the tendency to change a particular 3D shape. Every natural process has this ability. Hence, this is not evolution in a true sense. Evolution in a true sense requires the tendency to adapt to a particular environment. Given the fact that everything in the universe is just a specific arrangement of particles, a particular environment is also a specific arangement of particles. Further, an environment has a definite organized arrangement of particles, which means that an environment is essentially a 3D shape and therefore, evolution requires the tendency to adapt to a specific 3D shape. This is impossible because the particles have the potential to form nearly infinite number of different 3D shapes (10^3271 for only a 1000 particles) while there have been only a 10^43 resources in the history of life to scan through these shapes, or in other words, the organisms have not been able to find a specific 3D shape that is needed in order to adapt to another specific 3D shape(environment). Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

What a pile of illogical, unreasonable and unreasoned nonsense.Ignoring all the rest of that garbage, The evironment is a 3D shape has to be one of the most bizarrely bonkers statements posted on these boards.Why don't you waste you time trying to show that the mutation of the peppered moth isn't a 3D shape that can happen instead of all this pseudo-mathematical bullshit with no empirical or even theoretical grounding?You know, look at a real example of a real mutation causing a real beneficial change in a real organism which made it a better fit to its environment.We're all looking at a flying bee here, it's hard to tell us that it can't fly.

But if the DNA of an organism's offspring is different in only one or a few nucleotides, then the change they cause in a "specific 3D shape" of, say, a protein, would be very small and would be selected for (or not) by the environment. Additional small changes would accumulate in the descendants, with change proportional to the number of generations and passage of time. Small changes gradually accumulate into large changes. Your scenario doesn't occur in evolution.--Percy

Besides being uneducated about evolution, biology, mathematics and logic you've shown yourself to be just as inept with linguistic.The word "shape" has many meanings one of which is "a mode of existence or form of being having identifying features". Hence, an environment is a 3D shape.Further, the color variation in the peppered moth has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution since this idea tries to explain the origin of 3D shapes that we observe in biology(enzymes, molecular machines, organs, organ systems...). The color variation in the peppered moth is an instance of phenotypic plasticity - a pre-programmed feature of an organism. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

On the contrary, the theory of evolution is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. It explains all the relevant facts, is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and it makes successful predictions.The "poofing" theory of creation fails all of the above.

Remember the poofing creation story is just one of the creation myths in the Bible and the newer of the two. The earlier creation myth has the not very bright god character making animals out of mud. Of course when it involves humans that is only half the fantasy. To make women the god character uses cloning but it's pretty clear the god character has no real knowledge of genetics so it uses a rib instead of more accessible DNA sources.But that much older God was not very bright about most things.

The peppered moth changing to a dark color is an example of a type of mutation known as a transposon, or jumping gene. One position results in normal coloration, the other in dark coloration.--Percy

Right, despite being the poster child for old fashioned Darwinian evolution? Descent with medication with environmental change creating the selection pressure for survival of the fittest.Nothing in that might fit a definition of evolution? Did you ever read any evolution theory? You're out of date sir. The colour change was caused by a mutation. It was not gene plasticity.

quote:

---

Discovering the mutational events that fuel adaptation to environmental change remains an important challenge for evolutionary biology. The classroom example of a visible evolutionary response is industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia): the replacement, during the Industrial Revolution, of the common pale typica form by a previously unknown black (carbonaria) form, driven by the interaction between bird predation and coal pollution1. The carbonaria locus has been coarsely localized to a 200-kilobase region, but the specific identity and nature of the sequence difference controlling the carbonaria—typica polymorphism, and the gene it influences, are unknown2. Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record. We have begun to dissect the mode of action of the carbonaria transposable element by showing that it increases the abundance of a cortex transcript, the protein product of which plays an important role in cell-cycle regulation, during early wing disc development. Our findings fill a substantial knowledge gap in the iconic example of microevolutionary change, adding a further layer of insight into the mechanism of adaptation in response to natural selection. The discovery that the mutation itself is a transposable element will stimulate further debate about the importance of ‘jumping genes’ as a source of major phenotypic novelty.

---

The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element | Nature

How do you know that the mutation was not non-random(pre-programmed)?Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations | Nature"Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations""In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"And... what does randomness or non-randomness of shape modification have to do with my argument about the lack of resources?

If you have evidence it was pre-programmed, post it.Your claim, your job to support it.Since there is no evidence it was pre-programmed, and plenty of evidence it was a random mutation, we concluded that it was not pre-programmed. Evidence to the contrary is welcome.

Your are aware how life reproduces aren't you ?I mean, there are uncountable ways in which the atoms making the human body could combine, and yet my ex and I made a fully functioning human being not once, but twice !! What are the odds ?Edited by vimesey, : Realised I probably needed to make it even clearer.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Now you're really grasping at straws - that paper deals with e.coli bacteria not a sexually reproducing macro-organism.You will also note that the moth's mutation placed a transposon in a place not associated with pigmentation - a properly random event.Until you come up with your paper on pre-programmed randomness in Biston betularia, it remains what it is - a random mutation leading to evolutionary change.(The concept of non-random randomness is quite cute though. It implies a genetic function evolved to create change and enhance an organisms ability to evolve.)

quote:

---

Once there was a final shortlist of 87 DNA differences between the black and pale lab moths, he and his colleagues tested whether each variation, one by one, was present in the wider variety of white moths found in the wild.
"After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one, which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.
Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation.

---

It was an attempt to get you to deal with real world evolution and away from your fantasy numbers.